But that did not mean Syria was totally out of Lebanon. In fact, right after the Syrian withdrawal, the very well informed Kuwaiti newspaper Al Seyassah reported that, according to sources close to the Lebanese Ministry of Interior, tens of thousands of Syrians were naturalized, and among them were 5,000 Syrian intelligence personnel. And as of today, Syria is still very much in charge of Lebanon. What is the international community doing about this?

Not much, to say the least.

Indeed after the momentum of the spring 2005 revolution, it really looks like the West has given up on Lebanon and left the anti-Syrian forces in the mud. This trend has been quite clear in the past few months. Even after 29 terror attacks (since October 2004), targeting anti-Syrian personalities (mostly journalists and politicians), believed by many analysts to have been ordered by Damascus, the West is giving a free pass to the regime of Bashar Assad.

All the more mind-boggling is that recently Western targets have been victims of Syria's terror policy, according to some intelligence analysts. UNIFIL forces stationed in Lebanon have been murdered and on Jan. 15, a U.S. embassy vehicle was targeted. One would think that the West would react accordingly to attacks on its citizens, by retaliating with force or diplomacy. But nothing....

On the contrary, in the past year, Syria has been very much courted by the West, from U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to the Belgians, Italians, Spanish, Germans, and lately the French. In fact, the Nicolas Sarkozy administration was put in charge, by its allies (most notably the United States), to deal with the Lebanese situation and in particular the selection of the next president in Lebanon.

While the former French administration of Jacques Chirac was adamant in isolating Syria because of the murder of Chirac's close friend, Hariri, Sarkozy thought he could engage the Syrians and charm them. Thus, Sarkozy sent twice to Damascus his close advisers, Jean-David Levitte (the former French ambassador to Washington) and Claude Guéant (who happens to be close to Assef Chawkat, Syrian's head of security and Assad's brother-in-law).

Their mission was to ask Assad to pressure his Lebanese loyal supporters, including Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah, the president of Lebanon's parliament, Nabih Berri, and the Christian former army general, Michel Aoun, to accept a consensus presidential candidate.

But instead, Assad got to impose on the March 14 alliance, through France, army Chief Michel Sleiman – a man who incidentally was appointed by Damascus to this post – as the potential new president. But that was not enough. Syria wanted more control over the government and that is why it is blocking the situation.

History should have taught Nancy Pelosi and Western European powers that engaging a regime like Assad's does not work; on the contrary it actually emboldens it. Therefore, Syria is now adopting an even tougher stance. Assad can be really satisfied with his strategy: he did not concede anything; he publicly humiliated France; he showed that he was a key partner and he broke out of isolation.

After this debacle, Sarkozy recognized that it was no use speaking to the Syrians. It is quite possible that the idea behind this opening to Syria – offering Damascus a chance to reintegrate into the international community – was to break the Syrian-Iranian alliance and isolate Tehran even more. But this was a doomed policy.

And as Lebanese MP Elias Atallah, an expert on Syria, recently told Libération newspaper: "Our long experience shows that, each time friendly countries try to open up to Damascus, this ends up having a negative impact on Lebanon. In reality, the relations between the Syrian and Iranian regimes are very deep. They have been allied since 1982. Whoever thinks that he can change Syria's role is simplistic. Iran and Syria can totally live with their differences. They are minimal."

Last week, in Washington, a courageous Shiite leader, Ahmad al-Assad, who is vehemently opposed to Hezbollah, clearly summed up his frustration when he rightly pointed out that Damascus and Tehran are being given a free pass. Critics of the regimes in Damascus and Tehran say, "These two dictatorial regimes actually feel no Western pressure whatsoever for their role in spreading chaos, blood and mayhem in Lebanon. So why should they stop?"

Today's situation is reminiscent of 1988 when Richard Murphy, then U.S. assistant secretary of state, also fell into Damascus' trap. This resulted in several years of chaos and Syria's occupation and control of Lebanon. If the West is serious about winning the war against radical Islam, Lebanon is a key battle that should be fought. The Lebanese people deserve no less.

--

Olivier Guitta, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a foreign affairs and counterterrorism consultant, is the founder of the newsletter The Croissant (www.thecroissant.com).